Eccouncil 312-49v11 Exam Dumps

According to the CHFI v11 syllabus under Standards and Best Practices Related to Computer Forensics, the ENFSI (European Network of Forensic Science Institutes) Best Practices for Forensic Examination of Digital Technology place strong emphasis on the reliability, accuracy, and validation of forensic tools and methods. When investigating potential evidence tampering, the foremost concern is ensuring that the tools used to acquire, image, and analyze digital evidence are forensically sound and produce repeatable, verifiable results.

Verifying forensic imaging tools for accuracy ensures that the data acquired is an exact and complete representation of the original evidence, with no alteration introduced during the acquisition or analysis process. This directly supports evidence integrity, chain of custody, and legal admissibility---core principles repeatedly highlighted in CHFI v11. Tool validation also helps investigators defend their findings in court by demonstrating that industry-recognized, tested, and approved tools were used.

The other options do not align with ENFSI's primary focus. IP tracking (Option A) relates to attribution, not evidence integrity. File recovery techniques (Option B) are investigative actions but secondary to tool reliability. Determining criminal motive (Option C) falls under criminal profiling rather than forensic examination standards.

Therefore, consistent with CHFI v11 objectives and ENFSI best practices, verifying the accuracy and reliability of forensic imaging tools is the primary concern when addressing potential evidence tampering

According to the CHFI v11 Cloud Forensics objectives, cloud environments rely heavily on virtualization, where multiple virtual machines share the same underlying physical hardware such as CPU caches, memory, storage, and network interfaces. Attackers can exploit this shared-resource model by intentionally placing malicious VMs on the same physical host as the victim VM, a technique often referred to as co-residency attacks. Once co-residency is achieved, attackers perform side-channel attacks that analyze indirect indicators such as cache timing, memory access patterns, or CPU usage to infer sensitive information.

This scenario precisely describes the exploitation of shared resources for side-channel attacks. Timing vulnerabilities in shared CPU caches or memory buses allow attackers to extract cryptographic keys, credentials, or other sensitive data without directly breaching the target system. After obtaining credentials, attackers may impersonate legitimate users, escalating the impact of the attack.

Other options are incorrect because DNS hijacking (Option B) targets name resolution, SQL injection (Option D) operates at the application layer, and VM overloading (Option A) is typically associated with denial-of-service rather than covert data extraction.

The CHFI v11 blueprint explicitly addresses cloud computing threats and attacks, emphasizing risks introduced by multi-tenancy, shared infrastructure, and virtualization, making side-channel exploitation a critical forensic and security concern in cloud investigations

According to the CHFI v11 Computer Forensics Fundamentals and Evidence Handling and Sanitization guidelines, media sanitization is a critical process used to ensure that deleted or sensitive data cannot be recovered using forensic techniques. Different international standards define specific overwrite patterns and the number of passes required to securely sanitize storage media.

The procedure described---six overwrite passes alternating between 0x00 and 0xFF, followed by a final overwrite with 0xAA---exactly matches the VSITR (Verschlusssache IT Richtlinien) standard. VSITR is a German government--approved data sanitization method that mandates 7 overwrite passes:

Passes 1--6: Alternating 0x00 and 0xFF

Pass 7: Final overwrite with the pattern 0xAA

CHFI v11 explicitly references VSITR as a high-assurance sanitization standard, suitable for environments handling classified or highly sensitive information. This method is more rigorous than commonly used standards such as DoD 5220.22-M, which typically uses 3 passes (or a legacy 7-pass variant with different patterns). NAVSO P-5239-26 (MFM) uses different overwrite schemes, and GOST P50739-95 generally involves fewer passes.

From a forensic and legal standpoint, following a recognized sanitization standard like VSITR demonstrates due diligence, compliance, and defensibility, especially when preventing data leakage after incidents.

Therefore, based on the overwrite pattern and number of passes described, the media sanitization standard followed by Sarah is VSITR, making Option C the correct and CHFI v11--verified answer.

This question aligns with CHFI v11 objectives under Operating System Forensics, specifically Windows Registry forensics and binary data analysis. Windows registry hive files (such as SYSTEM, SOFTWARE, SAM, and NTUSER.DAT) are stored in binary format and contain valuable forensic artifacts related to user activity, program execution, persistence mechanisms, and system configuration. CHFI v11 emphasizes that forensic investigators must use tools capable of low-level binary inspection to accurately analyze these files.

Hex Workshop is a professional hex editor designed for detailed examination, interpretation, and manipulation of binary data. It allows investigators to view registry hive files at the hexadecimal level, search for specific byte patterns, validate offsets, and correlate raw binary structures with known registry data formats. This capability is essential when registry files are corrupted, partially deleted, or need manual verification beyond automated tools.

The other options are unsuitable: Camtasia is a screen recording tool, Rufus is used for creating bootable USB drives, and Dundas BI is a business intelligence and data visualization platform. None provide binary-level forensic analysis functionality. Therefore, consistent with CHFI v11 registry and binary forensic analysis practices, Hex Workshop is the most appropriate tool for examining registry files in this scenario.

According to the CHFI v11 Network Forensics and Log Analysis objectives, monitoring authentication failures is a critical technique for detecting brute-force and password cracking attacks against network services such as FTP. FTP servers communicate authentication outcomes using standardized FTP response codes, which can be filtered and analyzed using tools like Wireshark.

The FTP response code 530 explicitly indicates ''Not logged in'', which commonly occurs when a user provides invalid credentials (incorrect username or password). During brute-force or password spraying attacks, repeated failed login attempts generate multiple 530 response codes, making this filter highly effective for identifying malicious authentication activity.

In contrast, ftp.response.code == 230 indicates a successful login, which is not relevant when tracking failed attempts. The 532 response code means that an account is required for login, not necessarily a password failure. The 521 response code indicates that the FTP service is unavailable, which reflects server-side issues rather than authentication failures.

CHFI v11 specifically emphasizes correlating network traffic patterns and protocol response codes to identify unauthorized access attempts and credential-based attacks. Filtering for ftp.response.code == 530 allows investigators to isolate failed authentication attempts accurately and build evidence of potential password cracking activity.

Therefore, the correct and CHFI-verified answer is ftp.response.code == 530 (Option C).